Over the past twenty years there has been a dramatic decrease in the number of childhood lead poisoning cases in the United States. This downturn is due largely to the role the federal government has had in implementing bans on lead in gasoline, food cans, paint, and numerous other consumer products. However, even with these significant advances a recent Centers for Disease Control (CDC) study estimates that lead poisoning still affects 310,000 children ages 1-5. In addition, the disparities of the disease have become much more pronounced.
While lead poisoning can cross all barriers, be they income levels, gender, racial identity, or geographical location, the burden of this disease tends to fall inordinately on disenfranchised low-income families or families of color who more often live in aging, poorer quality housing with lead paint hazards. In fact, recent health and nutritional surveys consistently find that, on average, African-American and Latino children, as well as children below the poverty line, have the highest blood lead levels as compared to white children from high-income families. Additionally, studies also show that children from low-income families are eight times more likely to be lead poisoned than children from high-income families.
These disparities in the socioeconomic distribution of lead poisoning can undoubtedly be linked to exacerbating many of the behavioral and educational problems experienced by many inner city youth. These problems include learning and developmental disabilities, lowered IQ, hearing and visual impairment, as well as antisocial, delinquent, and violent behavior. In addition, as these problems compound and these lead poisoned children grow into adulthood, they are more likely to be unemployed, lack secure personal relationships, and have criminal records than their counterparts.
The current method employed by the federal government to combat lead poisoning has been through education cultivation and guidance. In my opinion, federally funded education programs like National Lead Poisoning Prevention Week (NLPPW) are ineffective because success relies on the ability, of what we now know are underprivleged families, to solve the problem themselves. Most of these families cannot pay for lead home inspections, a lead abatement contractor if needed, and most of these families don’t have the health care coverage needed for child screening. Treating the prevention of childhood lead poisoning as an education issue instead of an economic issue is completely off base and failing. Our approach to lead posioning must be dramatically altered if significant change is wanted instead of the negligible incremental change occurring.
The change needed involves a shift in focus from education to economics through an increase in federal funding to the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) lead hazard control grants program. This program provides local and State governments the monetary resources needed in order to address and eliminate lead paint hazards in low-income homes. This shift in approach will have instantaneous, real results, instead of the ambiguous, intangible results provided through the current lead education awareness programs in place.
The calculated benefits from immediately increasing funding to HUD’s lead hazard control grant programs, and shifting our focus from education to economics is enormous. If we as a people truly care about social justice the demand for a change in approach will be made, and a gross social injustice will be ameliorated.
